On second thoughts…

I want my fucking money back.

In my last post, I mentioned that I was buying the February 2010 issue of WND.com magazine WhistleBlower, “HIJACKING SCIENCE”. What a waste. The same old shit that the anti-intellectual right has been wheeling out for the last decade or so. In fact certain articles look cut and pasted straight from the internet.

WND lists the “highlighted” articles as:

  • “What do scientists know?” by Joseph Farah, on the difference between a scientific consensus and a political one
  • “History of climate gets ‘erased’ online” by Chelsea Schilling, exposing the scientist who has altered more than 5,000 Wikipedia entries to hype the global-warming agenda
  • “Politicizing science” by Thomas Sowell, who warns that when government gets involved, “do not expect the disinterested search for truth”
  • “Science bulletin: ‘Sun heats Earth!'” by Jerome R. Corsi, who profiles the Russian scientist whose research forecasts global cooling
  • “We’ve been had!” by Walter Williams, who says climatologists “fed us lies, engaged in scientific and academic fraud, committed criminal acts”
  • “How government corrupts science” by Art Robinson, in which the veteran scientific researcher exposes the pervasive and powerfully destructive consequences of federal “help”
  • “‘Gun ownership as disease’ reaches fever pitch” by Wayne LaPierre, who shows why a study claiming firearms possession increases people’s risk of death is “goofy”
  • “OSHA head ‘could outlaw firearms in workplaces, parking lots across America'” by Bob Unruh
  • “Why psychologist group embraces same-sex marriage” by David Kupelian, who asks why the American Psychological Association promoted adult-child sex as harmless in its peer-reviewed journal
  • “Clueless doctor syndrome” by David Kupelian, who explains why today’s psychiatrists and psychologists may be hazardous to your health
  • “Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link” by Jill Stanek, who reports that after seven years of denial, a National Cancer Institute honcho published the politically incorrect truth
  • “Obama science chief: Abortion can save planet” by Jerome R. Corsi, who documents how science czar John Holdren wrote a textbook saying forced sterilization may become necessary
  • “Want to save the planet? Ban babies”
  • “The latest ‘amazing’ fossil find,” by Joseph Farah, who wonders why scientists claim their discovery that the octopus hasn’t evolved in 95 million years somehow proves evolution – instead of the opposite
  • “Politics rules bioscience, too” by Jack Cashill, who exposes blatant anti-religion bias at the Smithsonian
  • “Why academics embrace evolution” by Marylou Barry, who quotes top scientists and intellectuals admitting the truth: “I do not want to believe in God”
  • “The evolutionist’s comical dogma” by Alan Keyes, who asks why “dogmatic emotionalism” dominates the supposedly scientific inquiry into the origins of life
  • “On scientists and God” by David Kupelian

In fact this is the entire contents of the magazine. It is a mess of half-truth, misrepresentation, ignorance and straight-out bullshit. The irony burns through out as each article details how politics and bias is suppose to have taken over scientific discovery, all the while wanting science to be subservient to “Judeo-Christian” beliefs. [On a side note, I love the term Judeo-Christian ethics or Judeo-Christian beliefs given that before World War 2 anti-Semitism was a particularly prevalent Christian ethic.] The crank magnet is in full throttle, global warming denialism, creationism, international conspiracies, never once stopping to question the articles writers’ own beliefs, that maybe the reason all these people disagree with them is because they are holding onto the wrong end of the stick.

I posted this years ago on Conservapedia, but it applies equally to WND:

Has any of the major contributors here ever stopped and asked themselves, without resorting to conspiracy theories, why it is that some of the most intelligent and educated people in Western world don’t agree with me? Why is it that people who spend all day doing critical analysis do not agree with my political views? Why is it that people who study geology, rocks and rock strata, come to the conclusion that the world is billions of years old? Why do you think people who spend all day looking at plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria come to the conclusion that they all descended from a common ancestor? You can claim bias and censorship all you want but we are dealing with over 1 million people here (a very conservative estimate I have learnt years later), they can’t all be colluding against you. It’s hard to get that many people to agree on one thing, especially if as you claim they hold petty jealousies. It seems to me Labdoor is right, you are covering for your own failed academic aspirations, you failed academically because you could not even critically analyses yourselves and what you believe. You instead remained steadfast in your opinions and looked for evidence to support them, rather than looking at evidence and forming your opinions. This is the opposite of intellectual pursuit.

Bookmark this post. Over the next few weeks I am going to write a post on each article, or at least each topic covered.

About Pi

Normally known as π on RationalWiki. A mathematics PhD student with an unhealthy interest in politics and religion.
This entry was posted in Alan Keyes, Climate Change, Creationism, David Kupelian, HIJACKING SCIENCE, Jack Cashill, Jerome Corsi, Jill Stanek, Joseph Farah, Thomas Sowell, WhistleBlower, Wikipedia, World Net Daily and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to On second thoughts…

  1. brxbrx says:

    Unfortunately, they just whine “argumentum ad populum,” ignoring the fact that the populum in question spent their lives in their fields and went through the rigorous process of peer review.

    • Pi says:

      They rarely whine “argumentum ad populum”, in fact it is their favourite argument. They use polls showing the number of people who believe in creationism as justification for why evolution should be taught in schools and why the government should not be funding research on it.

      • brxbrx says:

        It’s what they say when you point out scientific consensus. Go look at CP’s article on Project Steve, for example.

        Also, my apartment inexplicably smells like beer. But I haven’t had beer in a very very long time… Weird.

  2. Robbert says:

    I’ll be looking forward to your piece on the ‘global cooling’ article. I find it interesting how climate change deniers will still define the term of global warming. Richard Littlejohn did the same thing recently in a column. “Climate change doesn’t exist, because the earth is in fact cooling down!” Even if that were to be true, how is that NOT climate change?

    • Robbert says:

      Hang on, that should have read “how climate change deniers will still define it in terms of global warming”.

      • PsyGremlin says:

        Sadly, it’s just another sign that 99% of the people against climate change have no idea how it works. They have the phrase “global warming” and stick to that, which gives them a handy out if for example, we have a winter with heavy snowfalls.

        “Aha!” they say, “if it’s snowing so heavily, how can it be getting warmer?” which indicated that they absolutely no idea of the mechanics behind the higher snowfall.

  3. PsyGremlin says:

    Seriously, good luck reading through that drivel. I can’t get through more than 2 of their on-line crap before wanting to jam my thumbs in my eyes – I dread to think what the printed version is like.

    If posts about fluffy bunnies and insanely happy images start appearing, I’ll fully understand.

    • Pi says:

      I have actually read the whole thing. The only one that made no sense was Alan Keyes.

Comments are closed.